Tangmere

This shot from the original tour thread #151 is much clearer, and can be blown up on the screen. Definitely castellated I'd say, with the pin legs clearly seen at 9' 0'clock. The head is less clear.

4/

 

It is highly unlikely that different fixings would be used on oposite sides of a loco. The drivers side clearly has a castle nut and split pin. it would be reasonable to assume the other side is the same. The still of the video is insuficiently clear to dispute this assumption IMHO

Edit look at post 133 for a clear pic of the drivers side

 

Agreed. YouTube's heavy compression has obscured the detail (if was ever there) in the video.

 

And that was after Eastleigh wasn't it? Looks as it should there.

 

The OP says Winchfield in the morning.

 

Not saying you're wrong and it's a reasonable assumption but I know of a couple of locos where detail on one side is different from the other.

 

Agreed. Tangmere however has the earlier one piece type crosshead/piston rod, as favoured by Bulleid, but with the later type castellated nut. 34007 has the modified two-piece crosshead/piston rod joined by a cotter, but fitted with the earlier type nut arrangement.
Interestingly, on page 61 of the excellent book by Richard Derry of the light Pacific's, there is a close up photo of 34007's valve gear taken in 1962, with the latter type crosshead, the cotter pin is fitted horizontally on the plain nut, so the oil pot above it would not do anything to stop the cotter coming out if it worked loose.
Perhaps the BR fitter who assembled that particular assembly, didn't follow best practice!

Sent from my IdeaTabA2109A using Tapatalk

 

It wouldn't be the fitter's fault - the orientation of the gudgeon pin is dictated by the keyway in the back taper. Given that particular crosshead and that particular pin, it can only fit in one orientation....unless the key is removed. Which is NOT a good idea.

I believe the pin and crosshead are matched to ensure both tapers tighten correctly, which is likely to be a works job, so it has to have been deliberate.

 

Seems I mucked up the link last time ........ This shot from the original tour thread #151 at Winchfield in the morning is much clearer, and can be blown up on the screen. Definitely castellated, with the split pin legs clearly seen at 9' 0'clock. The pin head is less clear. (Also sent link to RAIB)

 

The rebuilding of the Bulleid Pacifics wasn't done in a hurry. Ultimately only about half of the class was rebuilt, but the rest remained in service. The faults weren't serious enough for BR to rush the rebuilds or withdraw the unrebuilt locos. Most of the problems with Bulleid's original design seem to have been related to the poor access for maintenance, rather than inherent failings. It seems to be fashionable to knock Bulleid's Pacifics, but I'm sure if BR had found them too problematic they'd have all been rebuilt.

 

I've not seen any evidence of Bulleid's pacifics being knocked on Nat Pres at all?

 

I'm sure the members of this forum are above making uninformed criticisms of Bulleid's design.

 

Yeh, it's not as if they were Great Westerm.....

 

I'm fairly sure that I have. Just to be sure I'll put it on my "to do" list.

 

I think it would be hard to find any class of locomotive that hasn't had a fair old knocking at some time or another. Such is the nature of rail enthusiasts (like every other kind!)

 

You've been looking at the wrong threads in that case.

 

Has anybody seen Tangmere since the incident?

 

Mailout received from Steam Dreams today states Tangmere will haul the trip to Bath & Cardiff on 1/3.

 

Here's a photo of how 34007 Wadebridge looks now:

 

Well she didn't. Is there any news on her return to the main line?